This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Sources: Checketts to drop Limbaugh

Originally Posted by Gill

They quoted remarks and claimed he said them. He says he did not, so the onus is on them to prove he did and I don't believe they can do that. That is slander for the ones that said in over the air like the talking heads on MSNBC and libel for those that printed it.

Re: Sources: Checketts to drop Limbaugh

Originally Posted by liblady

i guess we'll see what happens, my bet is NADA.

NADA? National Automobile Dealers Association? The group that publishes the book that lists the value of a used car?

I think you're wrong. I think there's going to be some serious fallout over what happened to El Rushbo - probably a few retractions and apologies issued, then perhaps a civil suit or two for the more egregious and recalcitrant ones.

Rush can easily prove the economic harm caused by the comments made about him, the obstacle is that since he's a "public figure" he has to prove "actual malice". Actual malice is defined as "...the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth."

I'm of the opinion that not checking actual facts, but instead using WikiQuote, before you go on the air with them is "reckless disregard". If Maharushie can find twelve people that think the same way as I do...

Last edited by SpotsCat; 10-15-09 at 04:11 PM.

SpotsCat is a ® trademark of SpotsCat Intergalactic Enterprises LLC, All Rights Reserved. Unauthorized use of the exceptionally witty material contained herein shall be prostituted to the fullest extent. Trespassers will be shot.

Re: Sources: Checketts to drop Limbaugh

Originally Posted by SpotsCat

NADA? National Automobile Dealers Association? The group that publishes the book that lists the value of a used car?

I think you're wrong. I think there's going to be some serious fallout over what happened to El Rushbo - probably a few retractions and apologies issued, then perhaps a civil suit or two for the more egregious and recalcitrant ones.

Rush can easily prove the economic harm caused by the comments made about him, the obstacle is that since he's a "public figure" he has to prove "actual malice". Actual malice is defined as "...the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth."

I'm of the opinion that not checking actual facts, but instead using WikiQuote, before you go on the air with them is "reckless disregard". If Maharushie can find twelve people that think the same way as I do...

seems to me rush would have to sue the partner hwo dropped him. btw, what exactly was said about rush and by whom?

Re: Sources: Checketts to drop Limbaugh

Originally Posted by Zyphlin

I'm really, REALLY interested to know if Soros is actually part of this group.

Because if he is, and this same backlash doesn't get done for him, then its going to be clear as ****ing day it has nothing to do with having and being out spoken about "Controversial views" and its going to have everything to do with liberal sports writers having a bone to pick with Rush Limbaugh and seeking to stir up and create a massive wave of discontent against him through race baiting, plain and simple.

They'll never say that Soros is racist, no matter what he has said.

"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
"Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

Re: Sources: Checketts to drop Limbaugh

Originally Posted by liblady

seems to me rush would have to sue the partner hwo dropped him. btw, what exactly was said about rush and by whom?

If you and I are going into a business partnership, and I drop you from the partnership because of comments made about your behavior - comments that are later proven to be false - then my lawsuit is against the people that made the comments. In theory, if my partner(s) should have known that the comments were so outlandish as to be false, then I can bring suit against them - especially if I can prove that they had an ulterior motive for forcing me out of the partnership - but nevertheless, my cause of action is against the person(s) who made the original comments.

Off of the top of my head -- there have been comments made by Rev. Jackson, Rev. Sharpton, and a variety of "talking heads" on all the alphabet network and cable channels - Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, just to name a few.

As I stated earlier - Rush can easily prove the economic loss as a result of the comments allegedly attributed to him. Now the question is "How far is Rush willing to persue this?"

SpotsCat is a ® trademark of SpotsCat Intergalactic Enterprises LLC, All Rights Reserved. Unauthorized use of the exceptionally witty material contained herein shall be prostituted to the fullest extent. Trespassers will be shot.

Re: Sources: Checketts to drop Limbaugh

Originally Posted by SpotsCat

If you and I are going into a business partnership, and I drop you from the partnership because of comments made about your behavior - comments that are later proven to be false - then my lawsuit is against the people that made the comments. In theory, if my partner(s) should have known that the comments were so outlandish as to be false, then I can bring suit against them - especially if I can prove that they had an ulterior motive for forcing me out of the partnership - but nevertheless, my cause of action is against the person(s) who made the original comments.

Off of the top of my head -- there have been comments made by Rev. Jackson, Rev. Sharpton, and a variety of "talking heads" on all the alphabet network and cable channels - Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, just to name a few.

As I stated earlier - Rush can easily prove the economic loss as a result of the comments allegedly attributed to him. Now the question is "How far is Rush willing to persue this?"

I don't think Rush is going to sue. I think he's going to get as much mileage out of this as he can and in the end, I believe he'll have the last laugh.

Originally Posted by Top Cat

At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.